To clarify. I think the media bias, 'the Vow', company threats + some questionable incidents made the whole referendum a fiasco. You obviously don't see it that way & that's fair enough, I respect your opinion. Simples.

A 'revisionist'? I guess that's similar to folk calling someone a 'terrorist' or 'freedom-fighter'. i.e. It depends on one's view point.

Ha ha OK!

Not sure on the terrorist bit to be fair but I'm pretty damn certain there was few if any people on here the night before the vote claiming the whole thing a fiasco..

But opinions are opinions and you are entitled to yours and as you went to such lengths to clarify for my slow heed I'm happy to let it lie there and even admit that to some degree I see where you are coming from! And really I suppose your point does echo to my earlier post on this thread about my musings on how effective referendums actually are....(almost got this chat relating back to the OP )

And as ever it is possible to view two things separately and without having to label someone who questions such things.

Both leaders of the SNP stated in televised interviews that it was a once in a generation type event...it's therefore fair to question their subsequent actions based on those comments.

The Vow contained very little in the way of 'promises' so it's also fair to question what promises people think were broken.

Asking the question shouldn't label someone immediately as a BritNat or whatever just because the question is aimed at Indy politicians or supporters. But I suppose that's why I decline to get involved in most of these discussions these days as it seems rather impossible to ask reasonable questions or seek reasonable answers without the labels coming straight out and the responses reverting back to the rhetoric that was being queried in the first place!

The vow starts off as follows,

The Scottish Parliament is permanent. That's the lie, as shown by the supreme court.

Take away all the other promises on jobs, pensions, renewables, oil bonanza, ship orders etc, our parliament is based on whether Westminster decides if it should stay open at all.

Stay, they said, you're an equal partner they said, lead the Uk, don't leave, your EU membership is safe if you vote NO, they said.

Sure the quote, often misquoted was 'once in a generation opportunity', but not 100% on that. Think Hibrandenberg's comment sums it up perfectly!

People are so quick to bring up the "once in a generation quote" but never seem to mention that the then prime minister stated that brexit would be enough reason for a second vote as it would've meant that the promises made in the independence referendum were false.

Anyway back to Catelonia. Personally I think they’ve been boxed in a corner. Madrid says it’s illegal to have a referendum. Madrid decides what’s leagal or not. Madrid will never allow a referendum to happen. How do the Catalonian people express their democratic desires?

Madrid then arrrest Catelonians politicians. It’s ****** mental! Moderate Catelonians (Soft no’s, let’s call them) should be flooding to the Independence flag as a result of these boot boy thug tactics.

Crazy!

I’m not being over dramatic, but it’s the exact ignoring of democracy that started the Civil war in 1936.

Eh? I'm pro-EU, it's you Unionists that want to rip us out into isolationism.

You are aware that significant numbers of people who voted Yes also voted to leave the EU? Including a number of SNP MSPs.

btw, latest poll this month, Survation Yes 46% (+3). Given the collapse of the oil price and the relentless Nat-bashing barrage from the media (and you on any random thread you can shoehorn your condescension into), that's pretty solid.

It's pretty telling that you consider it noteworthy to criticise me for expressing a contrary opinion - regardless of the number of threads I do it on. In fact I have only recently started posting on these themes again. Yessers seem to have real difficulty tolerating dissenting voices to the approved line.

I can see a Survation poll showing Yes at 42% but perhaps there's been another. Sturgeon clearly doesn't fancy it any time soon. Can't see it being her choice after the next SP elections.

“The best way to judge the scale of the constitutional crisis in Spain is to transpose it, albeit imperfectly, to a UK context. Imagine, then, a world where Theresa May orders in police and soldiers to raid Scottish government’s offices in Edinburgh, arresting 14 senior officials in the process, and seizing independence referendum materials. Then the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, declares the financial “credit” Scottish-based agencies can receive from UK-wide entities to pay wages and order supplies is suspended, and they require Edinburgh to seek HM Treasury approval for all non-essential Scottish government spending.

Then there’s a broadcast by the Prime Minister calling Nicola Sturgeon’s unofficial referendum illegal and urging her to end her “escalation of radicalism and disobedience”, adding a threat of jail for postal workers and local authorities if they have anything to do with the regional referendum.”

Cool. So if I understand this correctly,
technically the UK government could repatriate all powers without the consent of the Scottish parliament...thus killing said parliament.

And this appears to have been decided in 2017 by a court (although indirectly as it wasn't the main chat in the case) after an interpretation of the legislation that actually attempted to strengthen the parliaments position by legislating for its permanence through protecting any change of devolved powers as requiring the acquiesce of the devolved parliament in 2016?

So I'm not sure how this directly relates to the vow in 2014...seems to me that in the real world the Scottish parliament is as permanent a political institution as other main parliaments in Europe and beyond. And the legal status has simply been subject to some poorly written legislation, not nefarious lies by three politicians in 2014

Getting bothered about that all seems a bit of a stretch to me to say the least but maybe I'm not understanding it correctly at all

BBC show Rafael Nadal telling everyone how important catalonia is to Spain yet fail to mention the statement released by the worlds biggest football team barca. Partial steps taking already by the BBC.

BBC show Rafael Nadal telling everyone how important catalonia is to Spain yet fail to mention the statement released by the worlds biggest football team barca. Partial steps taking already by the BBC.

I thought they balanced it with the protestors but it did smack of "lets find a famous Spanish person and see what they think." Strange that Nadal was born in the Balearic Isles but supports Real Madrid as the natives speak Catalan.

The whole way the Spanish government is dealing with this issue actually reflects very well on UK democracy and how the indy ref was handled in spite of the, in my opinion, bias shown to the No side. It's well seen that Spain was a dictatorship until 1975. Plenty Spanish conservative factions who are happy to put the boot in to the Catalans.

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.' - Paulo Freire

“The best way to judge the scale of the constitutional crisis in Spain is to transpose it, albeit imperfectly, to a UK context. Imagine, then, a world where Theresa May orders in police and soldiers to raid Scottish government’s offices in Edinburgh, arresting 14 senior officials in the process, and seizing independence referendum materials. Then the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, declares the financial “credit” Scottish-based agencies can receive from UK-wide entities to pay wages and order supplies is suspended, and they require Edinburgh to seek HM Treasury approval for all non-essential Scottish government spending.

Then there’s a broadcast by the Prime Minister calling Nicola Sturgeon’s unofficial referendum illegal and urging her to end her “escalation of radicalism and disobedience”, adding a threat of jail for postal workers and local authorities if they have anything to do with the regional referendum.”

J

Good quote, and a good way of looking at it.

The Spanish really are handling this very badly - petrol on the flames. I hope Catalans get what they want.

As a general ref point though, after the brexit vote, i would consider that some kind of winning margin needs to be put in place if status quo is to change. I used to be a 50+1 believer, but now im not so sure it works?

Cool. So if I understand this correctly,
technically the UK government could repatriate all powers without the consent of the Scottish parliament...thus killing said parliament.

And this appears to have been decided in 2017 by a court (although indirectly as it wasn't the main chat in the case) after an interpretation of the legislation that actually attempted to strengthen the parliaments position by legislating for its permanence through protecting any change of devolved powers as requiring the acquiesce of the devolved parliament in 2016?

So I'm not sure how this directly relates to the vow in 2014...seems to me that in the real world the Scottish parliament is as permanent a political institution as other main parliaments in Europe and beyond. And the legal status has simply been subject to some poorly written legislation, not nefarious lies by three politicians in 2014

Getting bothered about that all seems a bit of a stretch to me to say the least but maybe I'm not understanding it correctly at all

That about covers it, the parliament of Wallonia has more clout at the moment, than ours.

Some more info for you to peruse It's 30 minutes long, but sections 3 and 4 are interesting.

It's pretty telling that you consider it noteworthy to criticise me for expressing a contrary opinion - regardless of the number of threads I do it on. In fact I have only recently started posting on these themes again. Yessers seem to have real difficulty tolerating dissenting voices to the approved line.

I can see a Survation poll showing Yes at 42% but perhaps there's been another. Sturgeon clearly doesn't fancy it any time soon. Can't see it being her choice after the next SP elections.

I have no problem arguing/discussing pro and anti Indy on here (probably v boringly but ho hum) with all sorts of unionists from GB Young and his British identity to SSideHB's jaded post-Yes cynicism. You are special because you pull the issue into all sorts of random Hibs threads, eg. last week on the need (or not) for a review of SFA governance vis a vis the Huns, you pile in with an attempt to blame the Scottish government (ffs!) No takers - surprise, surprise. Your arguments are predictable, one dimensional Nat bashing and add (imo) nothing to the debate on here, which is in parts pretty good.

... and I know you're not interested but for the record ... I dissent from the SNP line on monarchy, ridiculous post-Indy plans for stupidly inflated conventional military, was never keen on currency union, wish the Scottish government would be bolder on land reform and inequality and probably umpteen other things. Doesn't change the basic principle that the people who live in Scotland should govern it.

I have no problem arguing/discussing pro and anti Indy on here (probably v boringly but ho hum) with all sorts of unionists from GB Young and his British identity to SSideHB's jaded post-Yes cynicism. You are special because you pull the issue into all sorts of random Hibs threads, eg. last week on the need (or not) for a review of SFA governance vis a vis the Huns, you pile in with an attempt to blame the Scottish government (ffs!) No takers - surprise, surprise. Your arguments are predictable, one dimensional Nat bashing and add (imo) nothing to the debate on here, which is in parts pretty good.

... and I know you're not interested but for the record ... I dissent from the SNP line on monarchy, ridiculous post-Indy plans for stupidly inflated conventional military, was never keen on currency union, wish the Scottish government would be bolder on land reform and inequality and probably umpteen other things. Doesn't change the basic principle that the people who live in Scotland should govern it.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond like that - though perhaps not the pejorative nature of some of your comments.

You've taken the figure in that poll which excludes all undecided and refused to say respondents. I could be wrong but I think that inflates the value of Yes respondents does it not? The poll trends for Yes and SNP are all heading in the other direction, unless I'm missing something - though I don't pay that close attention to polls so I could be wrong tbf.

I think the reason you are sensitive to my raising the Scottish Government's failure to intervene on SFA governance is because a) it is a legitimate point and they are vulnerable on it and because b) Yessers don't like to have the Scottish Government exposed for its failings and certainly not in contexts where others generally less politically interested might be inclined to agree with the criticism. For the record I'll carry on posting wherever I think it is relevant to do so unless an admin prick advises me not to, as I imagine most other posters do.

To contextualise further, politicians in the UK parliament have not been slow to jump on the EFA publicly over their incompetent conduct in relation to the former England Women's team manager. Up here we have a staggering mess at the SFA in relation to both the former Rangers and current The Rangers and in relation to ongoing sectarian singing. The Scottish Government - which is not slow to make its mouth go whenever it thinks there are votes to be had in most other situations (it even has time to make formal statements about the internal constitutional issues of a separate sovereign state - Spain) - is deafeningly silent about the mess that is Scottish football. The Justice Minster was all over the 2016 Cup Final pitch invasion (frankly a very minor although visible public order issue) with public statements - but on something cancerous at the heart of our game over which the presiding body looks utterly compromised there's not a cheap from Scottish Government. I think that's pretty staggering. I'll not exempt the other parties in the Parliament from this either - but they aren't the ones holding Ministerial office.

You're entitled to think what you like about my arguments. I notice however that is generally regarded as acceptable by Nat and Yes posters to make predictable, one dimensional attacks on all other parties and that's ok. But criticise the SNP and we're into untouchable territory. Its fairly textbook play the man not the ball stuff.

I'm not sure which SNP line on the Monarchy you dissent from - the official line that we'd keep the queen after the Indyref or the below the line spin that of course we wouldn't that was just window dressing for monarchists.

None of the above changes the basic principle that the people who live in Scotland do govern it - they just choose to pool their sovereignty with the rest of the UK so that some decisions are made at UK level and some are made at Scotland level.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond like that - though perhaps not the pejorative nature of some of your comments.

You've taken the figure in that poll which excludes all undecided and refused to say respondents. I could be wrong but I think that inflates the value of Yes respondents does it not? The poll trends for Yes and SNP are all heading in the other direction, unless I'm missing something - though I don't pay that close attention to polls so I could be wrong tbf.

Quoting results excluding DKs is the best direct comparison with how everybody knows the 2014 result. 45-55 then vs 46-54 in that poll. Both sides values are therefore inflated.

The poll trend for Indy has been remarkably steady. There was some small movement towards Y following the referendum and a brief Yes lead immediately after Brexit which turned out to be a blip. It's settled back to a range a couple of points either side of the Indyref result and stayed there. Polling suggests about 10% of each side's vote have switched to the other.

The SNP have definitely lost ground from historic highs. I think the hardcore Unionist vote and some of the pro-Brexit former Indy supporters have coalesced around the Tories and there was some movement to Labour among left leaning voters resulting from Corbyn's election surge. Given that background, the Yes vote holding up is very encouraging albeit it's worrying that Holyrood has a fair chance of losing its pro-Indy majority if the SNP don't get some kind of revival underway.

I think the reason you are sensitive to my raising the Scottish Government's failure to intervene on SFA governance is because a) it is a legitimate point and they are vulnerable on it and because b) Yessers don't like to have the Scottish Government exposed for its failings and certainly not in contexts where others generally less politically interested might be inclined to agree with the criticism. For the record I'll carry on posting wherever I think it is relevant to do so unless an admin prick advises me not to, as I imagine most other posters do.

Nope, I don't think it's legitimate and I don't think the SG is remotely vulnerable on it. I don't think the SFA should require government intervention nor do I think there is even a tiny amount of public pressure for them to do so. Apart from anything else, the international organisations the SFA answers to expressly forbid any state interference. Your attempt to drag them into it (which notably drew zero response afaics) struck me as particularly desperate stuff.

They could be vulnerable on the offensive behaviour thing because I think they've made a right mess of it but I don't think anyone's really paying that much attention, apart from a core of Celtc and Sevco fans who want to offend one another, and attempting to repeal it lays the opposition open to the charge of being soft on bigots.

To contextualise further, politicians in the UK parliament have not been slow to jump on the EFA publicly over their incompetent conduct in relation to the former England Women's team manager. Up here we have a staggering mess at the SFA in relation to both the former Rangers and current The Rangers and in relation to ongoing sectarian singing. The Scottish Government - which is not slow to make its mouth go whenever it thinks there are votes to be had in most other situations (it even has time to make formal statements about the internal constitutional issues of a separate sovereign state - Spain) - is deafeningly silent about the mess that is Scottish football. The Justice Minster was all over the 2016 Cup Final pitch invasion (frankly a very minor although visible public order issue) with public statements - but on something cancerous at the heart of our game over which the presiding body looks utterly compromised there's not a cheap from Scottish Government. I think that's pretty staggering. I'll not exempt the other parties in the Parliament from this either - but they aren't the ones holding Ministerial office.

Simple. They stay out of football where possible because they are **** scared of getting involved in perceived sectarian side taking. Actually that's fairly typical of the SNP's main failing in my eyes (although I understand the strategy), an unwillingness to even slightly rock any boats this side of independence. Although imo there is no need for them to get involved in the Huns thing - that's just a straightforward failure of the SFA to follow its own rules - they could have done a far better job on the sectarianism front.

You're entitled to think what you like about my arguments. I notice however that is generally regarded as acceptable by Nat and Yes posters to make predictable, one dimensional attacks on all other parties and that's ok. But criticise the SNP and we're into untouchable territory. Its fairly textbook play the man not the ball stuff.

"But, but, but, what about what *they* did?"

I'm not sure which SNP line on the Monarchy you dissent from - the official line that we'd keep the queen after the Indyref or the below the line spin that of course we wouldn't that was just window dressing for monarchists.

I'd like to get the guillotine out, tbh,

None of the above changes the basic principle that the people who live in Scotland do govern it - they just choose to pool their sovereignty with the rest of the UK so that some decisions are made at UK level and some are made at Scotland level.

If you view giving up 100% of your sovereignty to your neighbour as "pooling" then fair enough.

I have no problem arguing/discussing pro and anti Indy on here (probably v boringly but ho hum) with all sorts of unionists from GB Young and his British identity to SSideHB's jaded post-Yes cynicism. You are special because you pull the issue into all sorts of random Hibs threads, eg. last week on the need (or not) for a review of SFA governance vis a vis the Huns, you pile in with an attempt to blame the Scottish government (ffs!) No takers - surprise, surprise. Your arguments are predictable, one dimensional Nat bashing and add (imo) nothing to the debate on here, which is in parts pretty good.

... and I know you're not interested but for the record ... I dissent from the SNP line on monarchy, ridiculous post-Indy plans for stupidly inflated conventional military, was never keen on currency union, wish the Scottish government would be bolder on land reform and inequality and probably umpteen other things. Doesn't change the basic principle that the people who live in Scotland should govern it.

If you get in bed with an elephant, it decides how much space you get, whatever the "pooled" arrangements for decision making were.

Is that a pro-Brexit point... 😁

Notwistanding the quality of the discussion that you and ODS are having, i do find it a little sad and jading (😉) that a genuinely interesting, and possibly worrying issues in a friendly , neighbouring country that almost all of us will be very familiar with, is dragged into a yes/no argument.

Scotland's constitutional future has been settled for the short to medium term, why cant we all (not a dig at you) stop viewing everything through yes/no prism?

Notwistanding the quality of the discussion that you and ODS are having, i do find it a little sad and jading (😉) that a genuinely interesting, and possibly worrying issues in a friendly , neighbouring country that almost all of us will be very familiar with, is dragged into a yes/no argument.

Scotland's constitutional future has been settled for the short to medium term, why cant we all stop viewing everything through yes/no prism?

Interesting to read opinions on Catalan situation here . Inevitably opinion that Catalans are being denied democratic right to a referendum in which a majority would vote for independence seems to be the general opinion here . I say inevitably because people in Scotland are obviously more aware of independence debates than most other Europeans . I`m a lifelong Scottish nationalist but have lived more time in Spain ( though never in Catalonia though I have visited Catalonia many times and have spoken to many Catalans over the years ) than in Scotland and think it`s a massive oversimplification to describe present situation as repression from Madrid against Catalan nationalism . There are many other factors to consider - significant number of Catalans ( I don`t know % , who does ? ) who are very comfortable being Catalan and Spanish but can`t express their views in public , cases of corruption involving families with powerful links with Catalan nationalist parties ( and cases of corruption in parties which are represented all over Spain - both sides of independence debate have used debate to deflect attention from their fraudulent activity ) . Noone really knows what will happen in the next 2 weeks except that there will be some sort of symbolic referendum on 1st October ( just as there was 2 years ago ) . Both sides ( Catalan nationalists in power in Catalan parliament and Spanish government in Madrid ( which includes a lot of Catalans ) could probably have handled the whole affair better and hopefully the situation will not get out of hand . As a Scottish nationalist I sincerely hope Scottish nationalists distance themselves from Catalan situation as I think situation is too complex and similarities are not as clear as some would think .

Interesting to read opinions on Catalan situation here . Inevitably opinion that Catalans are being denied democratic right to a referendum in which a majority would vote for independence seems to be the general opinion here . I say inevitably because people in Scotland are obviously more aware of independence debates than most other Europeans . I`m a lifelong Scottish nationalist but have lived more time in Spain ( though never in Catalonia though I have visited Catalonia many times and have spoken to many Catalans over the years ) than in Scotland and think it`s a massive oversimplification to describe present situation as repression from Madrid against Catalan nationalism . There are many other factors to consider - significant number of Catalans ( I don`t know % , who does ? ) who are very comfortable being Catalan and Spanish but can`t express their views in public , cases of corruption involving families with powerful links with Catalan nationalist parties ( and cases of corruption in parties which are represented all over Spain - both sides of independence debate have used debate to deflect attention from their fraudulent activity ) . Noone really knows what will happen in the next 2 weeks except that there will be some sort of symbolic referendum on 1st October ( just as there was 2 years ago ) . Both sides ( Catalan nationalists in power in Catalan parliament and Spanish government in Madrid ( which includes a lot of Catalans ) could probably have handled the whole affair better and hopefully the situation will not get out of hand . As a Scottish nationalist I sincerely hope Scottish nationalists distance themselves from Catalan situation as I think situation is too complex and similarities are not as clear as some would think .

Good post. Im ot sure your nuance and insight will work too well, because obviously every political situatiob can be resuced to a binary seps v britnats choice.

But its interesting to read your view.

I spoke to a spanish lady through my work about it, and was shocked by fhe level of intransigence and vitriol she showed, and she is an educated lady who works in and around politics - so im not surprised its not as simple as all that.

Quoting results excluding DKs is the best direct comparison with how everybody knows the 2014 result. 45-55 then vs 46-54 in that poll. Both sides values are therefore inflated.

The poll trend for Indy has been remarkably steady. There was some small movement towards Y following the referendum and a brief Yes lead immediately after Brexit which turned out to be a blip. It's settled back to a range a couple of points either side of the Indyref result and stayed there. Polling suggests about 10% of each side's vote have switched to the other.

The SNP have definitely lost ground from historic highs. I think the hardcore Unionist vote and some of the pro-Brexit former Indy supporters have coalesced around the Tories and there was some movement to Labour among left leaning voters resulting from Corbyn's election surge. Given that background, the Yes vote holding up is very encouraging albeit it's worrying that Holyrood has a fair chance of losing its pro-Indy majority if the SNP don't get some kind of revival underway.

Nope, I don't think it's legitimate and I don't think the SG is remotely vulnerable on it. I don't think the SFA should require government intervention nor do I think there is even a tiny amount of public pressure for them to do so. Apart from anything else, the international organisations the SFA answers to expressly forbid any state interference. Your attempt to drag them into it (which notably drew zero response afaics) struck me as particularly desperate stuff.

They could be vulnerable on the offensive behaviour thing because I think they've made a right mess of it but I don't think anyone's really paying that much attention, apart from a core of Celtc and Sevco fans who want to offend one another, and attempting to repeal it lays the opposition open to the charge of being soft on bigots.

Simple. They stay out of football where possible because they are **** scared of getting involved in perceived sectarian side taking. Actually that's fairly typical of the SNP's main failing in my eyes (although I understand the strategy), an unwillingness to even slightly rock any boats this side of independence. Although imo there is no need for them to get involved in the Huns thing - that's just a straightforward failure of the SFA to follow its own rules - they could have done a far better job on the sectarianism front.

"But, but, but, what about what *they* did?"

I'd like to get the guillotine out, tbh,

If you view giving up 100% of your sovereignty to your neighbour as "pooling" then fair enough.

To be clear JMS, I am not the one complaining about this. There's no "But, but, but, what about what *they* did?" from me because I have no problem with Yessers or whoever having a go at their opponents. In fact if we don't have that we don't have any debate.

Getting back on topic, I don't see how the Spanish government can allow an illegal referendum to go ahead in Catalonia:

1. It breaks the rule of law - so what other laws is it then okay to break?

2. If it goes ahead are they then bound by the result?

3. If this is allowed to go ahead a precedent is then set for the Basques and a whole host of other Spanish secessionist movements to host illegal referendums too.

I'm not sure it was too astute a tactical move for Scottish Government to make statements about this either. Partly because as IberianHibernian has said it is a complex picture but more importantly for the following reason. If Indyref2 happens at some stage in the future then the question of possible Scottish membership of the EU will re-emerge The Spanish are not going to be shy about settling debts on this one. Bearing in mind their increased seniority within the EU following UK departure, their public stance and their internal influence on the EU position is going to be all the harder for Yes to finesse.

In fact if this all ends in a separate Catalonia then a whole bunch of separatist movements are going to be encouraged across a range of EU nations - and I suspect that will mean an even tougher EU line for an independent Catalonia.

To disappear into one dimension of this, I'm sure Real Madrid would be just fine within a La Liga that did not include Barcelona but what would happen to Barca (and Espanyol) if the Spanish decided to take Catalonian independence really badly?